Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Marijuana is useful in treating PAIN.In addition, marijuana contains twice the amount of tar as tobacco. Whatever way you take it in, tobacco is less harmful.

Marijuana can also subdue other effects that aren't just pain. If you watch The Union: The Business Behind Getting High they have an interview with a man with multiple sclerosis who could barely talk or sit still from the near seizure like effects of his condition. After smoking a bit, he was able to remain relatively still and talk without a severe stutter.

tobacco used in cigarettes is fertilized with radioactive fertilizer, making cigarettes radioactive, and thus causing lung cancer.

Cigarettes also have nicotine, making cigarettes addictive.

While marijuana use can become habitual, a long time constant user taken off of marijuana won't suffer any withdrawals. This fact makes cigarettes more dangerous.

First of all, I doubt your statistic, because only about 200 people die a year due to Tylenol overdosing. That is to say, less than one person dies each day from Tylenol. So, what you have basically stated is that Marijuana has never killed anyone ever.

And are you really going to tell me that tobacco causes lung cancer due to being radioactive, rather than the whole breathing smoke thing?

that being said tylenol kills more than 450 a year with a few thousand hospitalized.

So if that's what you meant, why not simply say that marijuana has never killed anyone ever, rather than making an off hand comparison to an overthecounter drug often used to commit suicide?

KristallNacht wrote:To cause cancer it has to be radioactive. you seriously didn't know that?

So you're telling me that all tobacco has always been grown with radioactive fertilizers, and all marijuana has always been grown without radioactive fertilizers? For some strange reason, I find that hard to believe.

Rotaretilbo wrote:So if that's what you meant, why not simply say that marijuana has never killed anyone ever, rather than making an off hand comparison to an overthecounter drug often used to commit suicide?

people think of Tylenol as harmless.

you can't even commit suicide with marijuana if you tried.

rot wrote:So you're telling me that all tobacco has always been grown with radioactive fertilizers, and all marijuana has always been grown without radioactive fertilizers? For some strange reason, I find that hard to believe.

modern tobacco for cigarettes is grown with radioactive fertilizer.

Marijuana is generally grown in hydroponics which uses a whole different set of fertilizers.

regardless of whether you believe that. find a report of lung cancer caused by marijuana use. I dare you.

Fair enough. I did some digger, and couldn't come up with anything that contradicts what you're saying. Puts a whole new spin on marijuana for me. I still think this plan to fix the country should include a wall on the United States-Mexico border. Making it harder for them isn't going to stop them from romanticizing about our country and then crossing the border. If you have a leak, the best solution is to plug it.

KristallNacht wrote:rasq, dropping minimum wage reduces the costs of EVERYTHING. besides, places like food processing plants would still stay above the lowest paid jobs because people are less likely to want to do them.

I'm still not sure that dropping the minimum wage will lower prices enough to maintain standard of living.Of course, if something could prove me wrong and you right, I would support it.

KristallNacht wrote:While marijuana use can become habitual, a long time constant user taken off of marijuana won't suffer any withdrawals. This fact makes cigarettes more dangerous.

From the National Institute of Drug Abuse:

THC acts upon specific sites in the brain, called cannabinoid receptors, kicking off a series of cellular reactions that ultimately lead to the “high” that users experience when they smoke marijuana. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors; others have few or none. The highest density of cannabinoid receptors are found in parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thoughts, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement.1

Not surprisingly, marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Research has shown that marijuana’s adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off.2 As a result, someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a suboptimal intellectual level all of the time.

Research on the long-term effects of marijuana abuse indicates some changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term abuse of other major drugs. For example, cannabinoid withdrawal in chronically exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system3 and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine.4 Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs of abuse.

Effects on the HeartMarijuana increases heart rate by 20–100 percent shortly after smoking; this effect can last up to 3 hours. In one study, it was estimated that marijuana users have a 4.8-fold increase in the risk of heart attack in the first hour after smoking the drug.7 This may be due to the increased heart rate as well as effects of marijuana on heart rhythms, causing palpitations and arrhythmias. This risk may be greater in aging populations or those with cardiac vulnerabilities.

Effects on the LungsNumerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50–70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer;8 however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.9 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.

KristallNacht wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:So, what you have basically stated is that Marijuana has never killed anyone ever.

thats exactly what i'm saying.

that being said tylenol kills more than 450 a year with a few thousand hospitalized.

Oh boy, can't wait to see what mathemagic backs this one up.

KristallNacht wrote:To cause cancer it has to be radioactive. you seriously didn't know that?

rot wrote:So you're telling me that all tobacco has always been grown with radioactive fertilizers, and all marijuana has always been grown without radioactive fertilizers? For some strange reason, I find that hard to believe.

modern tobacco for cigarettes is grown with radioactive fertilizer.

Marijuana is generally grown in hydroponics which uses a whole different set of fertilizers.

regardless of whether you believe that. find a report of lung cancer caused by marijuana use. I dare you.

You are referring to the trace amounts of polonium found in tobacco fertilizer.

The presence of polonium in tobacco smoke has been known since the early 1960s.[64][65] Some of the world's biggest tobacco firms researched ways to remove the substance—to no avail—over a 40-year period but never published the results.[22]

Radioactive polonium-210 contained in phosphate fertilizers is absorbed by the roots of plants (such as tobacco) and stored in its tissues.[66][67][68] Tobacco plants fertilized by rock phosphates contain polonium-210, which emits alpha radiation estimated to cause about 11,700 lung cancer deaths annually worldwide.[22][69][70]

Note that they said "Rock Phosphates".That's a pretty common fertilizer, mind you.

Now, are you saying that marijuana, once it becomes mainstream, will CONTINUE to be grown hydroponically?Are you saying that MAINSTREAM farming techniques won't be used, now that marijuana plants don't have to be grown out of sight and out of mind?

@ NT:#1 - You forgot to put down the Government as a primary seller. They would raise a shit ton of money AND people would be happy.

#3 - That didn't make any sense. You are essentially replacing hard cash with a bond.

_________________I AM THE LAW[00:17:22] @ KrAzY : new law.[00:17:28] @ KrAzY : the law can now be a person.[00:17:28] @ XNate02 : The Law, can only be The Law.[00:17:32] @ Gauz : I'd kick everyone....[00:17:37] @ KrAzY : and that person is seath[00:17:39] @ kasrkin seath : YES------------------------------------------[02:22:43] @ KrAzY : the reason we all come to TCF is because Seath is too Lord Pheonix damn sexy to stop.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:I'm still not sure that dropping the minimum wage will lower prices enough to maintain standard of living.Of course, if something could prove me wrong and you right, I would support it.

prices are only so high because of minimum wage. minimum wage is pretty much the direct cause for inflation.

rasq wrote:For example, cannabinoid withdrawal in chronically exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system3 and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine.4 Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs of abuse.

first off, animals.second, thats an obvious 'withdrawal" if you can even call it that. not have a fairly constant stream of endorphins will cause you to be a bit more stressed than when you had a constant stream of endorphins.

Effects on the HeartMarijuana increases heart rate by 20–100 percent shortly after smoking; this effect can last up to 3 hours. In one study, it was estimated that marijuana users have a 4.8-fold increase in the risk of heart attack in the first hour after smoking the drug.7 This may be due to the increased heart rate as well as effects of marijuana on heart rhythms, causing palpitations and arrhythmias. This risk may be greater in aging populations or those with cardiac vulnerabilities.

okay? so risk means what? find someone thats had a heart attack because of marijuana.

Effects on the LungsNumerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50–70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer;8 however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.9 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.

you backed me up. marijuana has zero known cases of causing lung cancer.

you bringing up these risks that have never happened is like me saying "people shouldn't go outside because the sun can give you cancer!!!".....oh wait, THAT DOES HAPPEN. srsly rasq. instead of using hypotheticals, can you actually look for something substantiated?

rasq wrote:Oh boy, can't wait to see what mathemagic backs this one up.

that no ones died from marijuana use?....well...lets see.

every substance is generally given an LD-50 rating, which is the amount of the substance that could be used as a LETHAL DOSE on 50% of the test rats. Marijuana has yet to have an LD-50 discover. They have been unable to flood a rats system with enough thc and whatnot to kill him.

Marijuana's LD-50 is SUSPECTED of being 20,000 or 40,000 which in real-world human terms translates to 500lbs of bud. Most marijuana users don't even get through 500lbs themselves in their lifetime. but they don't have their entire life. for 500lbs of marijuana to be lethal, it has to all be consumed in less than an hour.

no rasq. if you doubt this. look it up. if you can find a SINGLE article about someone dying from marijuana, i'll totally shut up.

you are aware you did just match the claim i made right? carcinogens are technically radioactive.

Now, are you saying that marijuana, once it becomes mainstream, will CONTINUE to be grown hydroponically?Are you saying that MAINSTREAM farming techniques won't be used, now that marijuana plants don't have to be grown out of sight and out of mind?

most people would grow their own, tbh. especially once they found out that the big companies stuff causes cancer.

and on top of that, the main thing about legalizing it is freeing up money to target the 'hard' drugs as well as lessening the strain on our prison systems.

lets break it down:positives:+high people are happy people+we'd have access to hemp clothes which last 4x as long as cotton+we'd be able to make books with hemp paper effectively ending deforestation as well as increasing the length of time our books are in good quality+prison system would be better due to less overcrowding (not the mention non violent drug offenders that end up in prison come out as true criminals)+100% of the narcotics budget could go to controlling heroin, meth amphetamine , and cocaine instead of the current < 25%

Rot wrote:Or just get rid of it altogether in the first place. The problem with minimum wage that people don't seem to realize is that when a company is forced to pay its workers more, it either cuts benefits or lays off employees to compensate. If jobs don't offer fair wages, they won't attract employees, so a minimum really isn't particularly necessary.

Tell that to the sweatshop workers in China...

If all physical labor jobs start paying wages with which you cannot make a living, society will fall apart, the middle class will be cut in half, and all those who cannot receive advanced education would be forced to live on the street.

This is a perfect example of where Capitalistic society absolutely requires regulation to be sustainable.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:I'm still not sure that dropping the minimum wage will lower prices enough to maintain standard of living.Of course, if something could prove me wrong and you right, I would support it.

prices are only so high because of minimum wage. minimum wage is pretty much the direct cause for inflation.

First off, animals are considered to be excellent subjects for experimentation when testing human products.

KristallNacht wrote:second, thats an obvious 'withdrawal" if you can even call it that. not have a fairly constant stream of endorphins will cause you to be a bit more stressed than when you had a constant stream of endorphins.

Well, according to you...

KristallNacht wrote:While marijuana use can become habitual, a long time constant user taken off of marijuana won't suffer any withdrawals. This fact makes cigarettes more dangerous.

KristallNacht wrote:okay? so risk means what? find someone thats had a heart attack because of marijuana

I must admit that I can't find any.If you Bing Marijuana Heart Attack, you get reports on studies linking the two.If you Bing Tobacco heart Attack, you get reports on studies which link the two.

KristallNacht wrote:

Effects on the LungsNumerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50–70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer;8 however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.9 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.

you backed me up. marijuana has zero known cases of causing lung cancer.

You didn't read the paragraph.Marijuana smoke SHOULD be causing more lung cancer. A single study contradicts this. A single study also says that vaccines cause autism. >.<"unsubstantiated" means that it hasn't been proven yet, set in stone. However, a study is unable to PROVE anything, unlike an experiment. It just indicates correlations.

KristallNacht wrote:you bringing up these risks that have never happened is like me saying "people shouldn't go outside because the sun can give you cancer!!!".....oh wait, THAT DOES HAPPEN. srsly rasq. instead of using hypotheticals, can you actually look for something substantiated?

Me bringing up these risks is saying "THIS IS WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF WE LEGALIZE MARIJUANA AND IT GOES MAINSTREAM."

If I said that "Studies indicate that smokeless tobacco may contribute to heart attacks", would you have any trouble in believing me?

KristallNacht wrote:no rasq. if you doubt this. look it up. if you can find a SINGLE article about someone dying from marijuana, i'll totally shut up.

I must admit, I am surprised.While THC IS more toxic than nicotine, it disappears faster.

you are aware you did just match the claim i made right? carcinogens are technically radioactive.

Radionuclides are carcinogens, yes, but chemicals that are not radioactive can still be carcinogenic, such as vinyl Chloride.

KristallNacht wrote:Now, are you saying that marijuana, once it becomes mainstream, will CONTINUE to be grown hydroponically?Are you saying that MAINSTREAM farming techniques won't be used, now that marijuana plants don't have to be grown out of sight and out of mind?

most people would grow their own, tbh. especially once they found out that the big companies stuff causes cancer.[/quote]My understanding of current law states that people can grow tobacco themselves, for their own use.

Despite the fact that coffin nails cost upwards of seven dollars a pack, the number of people who do so is negligible.So, if you legalize marijuana, the cottage industry of home-grown marijuana is going to get washed away by commercial farming.[quote]

rasq wrote:First off, animals are considered to be excellent subjects for experimentation when testing human products.

i'm aware, i'm just pointing out.

rasq wrote:Well, according to you...

KristallNacht wrote:While marijuana use can become habitual, a long time constant user taken off of marijuana won't suffer any withdrawals. This fact makes cigarettes more dangerous.

more stress isn't a withdrawal. thats just returning to normal. if you're in a specifically designed low stress environment for a long time. then stuck back in the real world, are you gonna be more stressed? most likely, and provided you didn't decide to leave the low stress world you'll want back. but if you made the decision to leave the low stress world for a reason, chances are you'll manage.

rasq wrote:I must admit that I can't find any.If you Bing Marijuana Heart Attack, you get reports on studies linking the two.If you Bing Tobacco heart Attack, you get reports on studies which link the two.

i've also never said cigarettes cause heart attacks have i? so non relevance of heart problems is proven.

rasq wrote:You didn't read the paragraph.Marijuana smoke SHOULD be causing more lung cancer. A single study contradicts this. A single study also says that vaccines cause autism. >.<"unsubstantiated" means that it hasn't been proven yet, set in stone. However, a study is unable to PROVE anything, unlike an experiment. It just indicates correlations.

just like bumble bees SHOULD not be capable of flight.

rasq wrote:Me bringing up these risks is saying "THIS IS WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF WE LEGALIZE MARIJUANA AND IT GOES MAINSTREAM."

marijuana isn't mainstream?

If I said that "Studies indicate that smokeless tobacco may contribute to heart attacks", would you have any trouble in believing me?

that it may? probably not. that is does? probably. that would be a weird thing to believe.

rasq wrote:I must admit, I am surprised.While THC IS more toxic than nicotine, it disappears faster.

also it doesn't develop a dependency in the brain.

rasq wrote:Radionuclides are carcinogens, yes, but chemicals that are not radioactive can still be carcinogenic, such as vinyl Chloride.

i'm curious. has vinyl chloride ever caused cancer? or is it a matter of it SHOULD cause cancer?

rasq wrote:My understanding of current law states that people can grow tobacco themselves, for their own use.

and lets see the difference.

what makes a cigarette? tobacco + lots of shitwhat makes a joint? marijuana.....thats it

in case you forgot, people don't smoke cigarettes for the tobacco.

Despite the fact that coffin nails cost upwards of seven dollars a pack, the number of people who do so is negligible.So, if you legalize marijuana, the cottage industry of home-grown marijuana is going to get washed away by commercial farming.

we'll never know, but in the end, thats a small possible negative.

so even if i gave you the point for "marijuana causes cancer" I am still beating you 5 to 1.

NT wrote:what? you are aware that there are only sweatshops in china because of minimum wage right?

Ummm, no, I'm not. There are sweat shops in China because cheap labor is so readily available.

NT wrote:using a forum country, that uses a different economic system entirely, that has completely different social standards as an example is fail.

It demonstrates the harm that can be done from the lowering or the destruction of the minimum wage.

NT wrote:minimum wage causes inflation. period. minimum wage has never done any good for anyone (in the modern world)

NEVER done any good for ANYONE ey? You sure do have a thing for absolutes.

the raising of the minimum wage might be a factor of inflation, but the minimum wage only gets raised as a RESPONSE TO INFLATION. Ohio just recently brought their minimum wage up from something like $6.00 to $7.50. This is because the cost of living has gone up in recent years, and so minimum wage must be raised to compensate for that.

Think of it this way. If minimum wage was $5.00 an hour back in 1970, and 40 years go by without any changes, people with minimum wage jobs would not be able to afford the cost of living. For this reason, the wage would be raised to $8.00 an hour.

Minimum wage is a RESPONSE to inflation, that can over-time, become a factor of inflation... but a small one at that.

ReconToaster wrote: Ummm, no, I'm not. There are sweat shops in China because cheap labor is so readily available.

but the reason they were forced to look in china was because it was TOO EXPENSIVE to afford workers here.

recon wrote:It demonstrates the harm that can be done from the lowering or the destruction of the minimum wage.

no minimum wage makes us an overpopulated communist country?

recon wrote:the raising of the minimum wage might be a factor of inflation, but the minimum wage only gets raised as a RESPONSE TO INFLATION. Ohio just recently brought their minimum wage up from something like $6.00 to $7.50. This is because the cost of living has gone up in recent years, and so minimum wage must be raised to compensate for that.

Think of it this way. If minimum wage was $5.00 an hour back in 1970, and 40 years go by without any changes, people with minimum wage jobs would not be able to afford the cost of living. For this reason, the wage would be raised to $8.00 an hour.

Minimum wage is a RESPONSE to inflation, that can over-time, become a factor of inflation... but a small one at that.

minimum wage raising is the number one cause of inflation. why do you think prices go up? what makes the standard new edition TVs now cost more than they did before when the tech involved is getting cheaper and cheaper?

oh wait..lets see....LABOR COSTS MORE.

recon wrote: And how exactly would you expect someone to live off of $4.00 an hour?

if minimum wage (or real minimum wage) was $4.00 an hour in California as opposed to the $8+ is is now you'd be able to live off of it just as much as you can live off of minimum wage now. EVERYTHING you purchase somewhere down the line has someone working minimum wage.

if mcdonalds and walmart could pay their employees half as much, prices WOULD go down. period. you can't argue that.

reducing minimum wage would also open up more options for jobs in places currently understaffed as well as actually making it easier to start your own business, which is a good thing, considering we're CAPITALISTIC.

recon, if minimum wage everywhere was dropped to zero, explain in detail exactly how that would effect the job market, price of goods and social well being (in the long run, because i know immediate drop would have adverse effects in the short term as is why i proposed slowly lowering it)

What can be gained from Marijuana is much greater than what damage it does. Not to mention there are rarely any cases of death from Marijuana, as NT pointed out. I think this is a good idea, only that it wont happen.Nice to see NT has such a large support.

NT wrote:but the reason they were forced to look in china was because it was TOO EXPENSIVE to afford workers here.

What, you don't think Nike can afford to make their shoes in the United States? Corporations don't outsource to China because American workers are "too expensive," for them to afford. They do it to attain the absolute highest possible profit margin. Sweat shops in China are the result of corporate greed.

If Minimum wage was eliminated in the United States, corporate greed would do the same to us as it has to them.

NT wrote:no minimum wage makes us an overpopulated communist country?

When did I say that? I'm quite sure I never said that. I was discussing the adverse effects of low minimum wage, which include corporations taking advantage of, and abusing workers. I said nothing of communism. Stop trying to twist my words.

NT wrote: minimum wage raising is the number one cause of inflation. why do you think prices go up? what makes the standard new edition TVs now cost more than they did before when the tech involved is getting cheaper and cheaper?

oh wait..lets see....LABOR COSTS MORE.

Minimum wage is a response to inflation which temporarily solves problems for the average worker. Still, the fact is NT, the cost of living rises whether or not Inflation goes along with it.

Think about it. In the old days, you simply had to pay for food, living space, and taxes. Today we must account for all of those things, along with Air conditioning, television, heating, water, electricity, gasoline, ect....

As technology evolves, the cost of living grows with it. Minimum wage might be somewhat responsible for Inflation over time, but never the less, the cost of living will continue to go up, and thus wages will have to go up with them.

NT wrote:if minimum wage (or real minimum wage) was $4.00 an hour in California as opposed to the $8+ is is now you'd be able to live off of it just as much as you can live off of minimum wage now. EVERYTHING you purchase somewhere down the line has someone working minimum wage.

It would be nice to think that corporations would be so nice and friendly as to continue to supply us with the quality of products that we have today at a cheaper price, but history tells us that this would not be the case.

In the late 1800's, during the industrial revolution, average workers were paid intolerably low wages. Did this result in manufacturers lowering prices on the same quality goods? NO!

Instead, competition between corporations became focused on who could produce the most items fastest, and for the lowest cost to themselves. The result for the consumer was indeed more affordable goods, but these goods were in no way "quality."

Quality had been sacrificed for low expense, which is yet another example of corporate greed, which ALWAYS takes center stage in unregulated capitalism.

If you think times have changed, just look towards Enron. In a market with very little regulation, they managed to take complete control of the California energy production industry, and commit acts such as STAGING POWER SHORTAGES IN ORDER TO ARTIFICIALLY CREATE DEMAND!

Corporate Greed is ever-present, and it absolutely needs regulation to sustain itself.

NT wrote:reducing minimum wage would also open up more options for jobs in places currently understaffed as well as actually making it easier to start your own business, which is a good thing, considering we're CAPITALISTIC.

If you want to make it easier for new businesses, work towards taking away other responsibilities of small business employers, like providing healthcare for their staff, and allowing them to go with the good ol' public option.

Minimum Wage is not expendable.

NT wrote:recon, if minimum wage everywhere was dropped to zero, explain in detail exactly how that would effect the job market, price of goods and social well being (in the long run, because i know immediate drop would have adverse effects in the short term as is why i proposed slowly lowering it)

In the worst case scenario, employers would begin paying employees extremely low wages, and the goods produced by manufacturers would become cheap, and poorly made. As a result of this, the quality of life for the average American citizen would quickly degrade to an unsustainable condition, at which point the government would step in and re-introduce minimum wage.

ReconToaster wrote:What, you don't think Nike can afford to make their shoes in the United States? Corporations don't outsource to China because American workers are "too expensive," for them to afford. They do it to attain the absolute highest possible profit margin. Sweat shops in China are the result of corporate greed.

If Minimum wage was eliminated in the United States, corporate greed would do the same to us as it has to them.

well 1. there would at least be jobs2. the chinese don't have workers unions.

you're looking at worst case scenario, which really isn't that bad. do you know how much that 'super cheap' cost in china is to the chinese? its quite good. they're hardly being 'taken advantage' of.

recon wrote: When did I say that? I'm quite sure I never said that. I was discussing the adverse effects of low minimum wage, which include corporations taking advantage of, and abusing workers. I said nothing of communism. Stop trying to twist my words.

and my point was there are large differences between the two countries. china isn't in 'poor' condition because of how little nike pays them, but because of the rest of the country.

recon wrote: Minimum wage is a response to inflation which temporarily solves problems for the average worker. Still, the fact is NT, the cost of living rises whether or not Inflation goes along with it.

Think about it. In the old days, you simply had to pay for food, living space, and taxes. Today we must account for all of those things, along with Air conditioning, television, heating, water, electricity, gasoline, ect....

As technology evolves, the cost of living grows with it. Minimum wage might be somewhat responsible for Inflation over time, but never the less, the cost of living will continue to go up, and thus wages will have to go up with them.

as technology evolves the cost of living actually goes down. since things are getting cheaper. which reminds me of another point to fix the country. Nuclear Power.

minimum wage is the only thing making cost of living go up.

recon wrote: It would be nice to think that corporations would be so nice and friendly as to continue to supply us with the quality of products that we have today at a cheaper price, but history tells us that this would not be the case.

In the late 1800's, during the industrial revolution, average workers were paid intolerably low wages. Did this result in manufacturers lowering prices on the same quality goods? NO!

Instead, competition between corporations became focused on who could produce the most items fastest, and for the lowest cost to themselves. The result for the consumer was indeed more affordable goods, but these goods were in no way "quality."

Quality had been sacrificed for low expense, which is yet another example of corporate greed, which ALWAYS takes center stage in unregulated capitalism.

you are aware that companies now don't HAVE to make quality items right? that being said, reducing minimum wage doesn't change the quality of the items.

recon wrote: In the worst case scenario, employers would begin paying employees extremely low wages, and the goods produced by manufacturers would become cheap, and poorly made. As a result of this, the quality of life for the average American citizen would quickly degrade to an unsustainable condition, at which point the government would step in and re-introduce minimum wage.

employers pay next to nothing and no one applies for the job if they can't be supported by it.

how does minimum wage effect the quality of the item? seriously?

its like you aren't even thinking.

minimum wage goes up by 25 cents.

the guys making your burgers and stocking the shelves at your grocery stores are getting paid 25 cents more an hour. assume each worker works 40 hours a week. thats $10 a week more the company has to pay, per employee. wal-mart probably employs well over 50 people. Thats $500 a week that that individual store has to pay out.

how does that not directly contribute to higher prices?

proof of the fact minimum wage doesn't actually DEFINE the lowest wage paid: in Hawaii the minimum wage is $7.25. guess how much mcdonalds in hawaii pays per hour?

TEN DOLLARS!!!

why? because it benefits them to pay at $10 an hour.

just as it would benefit walmart to pay its employees more than 10 cents provided no minimum wage was present.

NT wrote:as technology evolves the cost of living actually goes down. since things are getting cheaper. which reminds me of another point to fix the country. Nuclear Power.

minimum wage is the only thing making cost of living go up.

Technology increases the STANDARD OF LIVING, and offers better quality life for less cost. Nevertheless, the cost of living is much higher than it was 200 years ago. We have to pay cellphone bills, internet bills, television bills, heating bills, water bills, electricity bills.... ect.

The cost of living HAS gone up, and it has little to do with Minimum wage. Minimum wage is a response to inflation, and natural rising costs of living. Over time, it causes inflation, but it is not a major contributing factor.

NT wrote:employers pay next to nothing and no one applies for the job if they can't be supported by it.

how does minimum wage effect the quality of the item? seriously?

its like you aren't even thinking.

No NT, it's like you can't even read.

No one applies for a job that they cannot be supported by? Again, tell that to the men and women of the late 1800's. If a job which pays less than it is possible for you to live on is the ONLY job available to you, you don't have a choice.

As I explained, if the majority of minimum wage jobs start paying employees extremely low wages, manufacturers will no longer be interested in competing in terms of product quality. Instead, they will focus on producing cheaply made items at the lowest cost, and as fast as they can.

This is what happened in the late 1800's, and it could happen again.

NT wrote:you are aware that companies now don't HAVE to make quality items right?

Yes.... but in the modern market, there is incentive to produce quality items. Apple combats Microsoft by trying to 1up them in quality. GM tries to make more fuel efficient vehicles than those made oversees.

In a world where the majority of people are making hardly any money, the incentive to produce quality items is replaced by an incentive to produce cheap items FAST.

I never said companies "have to" produce quality items, but it's certainly a good thing that they do, and it would be very bad if that stopped.

NT wrote:proof of the fact minimum wage doesn't actually DEFINE the lowest wage paid: in Hawaii the minimum wage is $7.25. guess how much mcdonalds in hawaii pays per hour?

TEN DOLLARS!!!

Great! And my local food market pays $8.00 an hour in a state with a minimum wage of $7.25.

Minimum wage doesn't "define the lowest wage paid," at all employers, but it does affect it.